Tero

October 19, 2001

Originally posted by Skipper:

Yes, but let's say that in the context of this here argument (professional vs conscription), Poland lost utterly enough without soviet help.

True.

Even though professional army is theoretically better prepared for the early stages of war.

I have seen claims that early Polish mobilization would perhaps altered the chain of events. Theoretically speaking a truly professional army should not have to mobilize to be able to conduct limited combat operations.

Was the Polish army a professional army, really ?

Someone (dont remember who) said that germans did not practice blitz-krioeg in training. Let me disagree. Certainly, they did not practice it in soldiers training - on the tactical level it doesn't matter that much (shooting, throwing grenades, moving, digging in and other fieldcraft remains the same). But on the operational level they practiced it an awful lot. Read Guderian for reference. That's how they won in Poland and France - even though on tactical level there were all sorts of funny problems. When they went to Russia - at that time they were the most battle-hardened army in the world.

I have to agree with you: how does an entire army train large scale operations for a new form of warfare that is supposed be a secret ? They had trained in Soviet soil with the Red Army but I think that was only the administrative side or the orchestration side of the Blitzkrieg they were practising there. The small unit battle drill and other essentials had to be done elsewhere.

I'd say they had the basic unit battle drill and tactical training integration between branches down good.

October 19, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Dobler.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I promise for my part to keep this a non-chauvinist scientific debate. The intention is to quantitify the unquantifiable. This time from what I think is a scientifically quantifiable POV.

Come on, I know you want to chip in.

October 19, 2001

Originally posted by Sergei:

there are green pro's and veteran pro's, and then there are green conscripts and veteran conscripts. Which do you want to compare?

None of them. And all of them.

The question is really about the infrastructure from which the armies could wage war, not the experience levels or other current CM abstractions and approximations as such.

When the war started the masses in both sides were green. Only the conscript armies had a broader base from which to draw pre-trained replacements and form new shake and bake formations to swell up the army into war footing.

Also, do you people think that an army of volunteers (like the jolly Afghan coalitions) is a conscript or a professional army? Maybe it doesn't attract people in the same level as a forced conscription does, but neither is it a "career" or "job" like in professional armies: even the most patriotic guerillas usually plan to return to their pre-war occupation. Also, the warriors might be more dedicated to the cause than conscripts (slaves) or professionals (mercenaries).

In WWII terms they would be the resistance fighters or partisans.

I suppose any army in the world does have some traces of professionalism, excepting a few guerilla bunches which might happily dismiss themselves when the fight is over. I mean, in every army there are officers and some expensive-to-train folks like fighter jockeys, who are there not because of a must but because of a want.

Quite. But the few selected specialist military trades are exceptions and uniform in all armies. It is the cannon fodder that is at the core of my premis.

In my view, conscription has a better chance of attracting good men to army, because otherwise many potential officers would just go to study and civil work.

Agreed. But the cadre officers and NCO do not form the entire army.

Does it really matter that much, dunno.

That is what I am trying to find out.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

October 19, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Skipper:

I thought they were completely crushed by the Germans first, then Russia entered the fray. Do you know something that I don't?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before that, when they went and signed the non-aggression pact with it's secret allocation of speheres of influence.

October 19, 2001

One interesting remark I found the other day stated that it was SOP for the Red Army artillery FO's to come close to the front line and even sneak inside the defensive positions so they could spot and direct fire better.

And then there were of course the usual balloons.

October 19, 2001

Originally posted by Gyrene:

We'll here I go again with my USMC-centric observations, but the Corps at least had a strong core of Officers and NCO's who had quite a bit of field experience by 1941 in Central America, China & several others. Granted the USMC was but a fly speck by 1944 standards, that experienced core made a huge difference in holding their units together in the early battles.

Can you verify if they were indeed career (=professional) servicemen ?

While the USA has always had a professional Army this century, remember that the US Army was still practicing armor manuevers on trucks with the word "Tank" painted on the side as late as 1938. The will was there, but the money was not.

This brings up a rather important point: if a conscript army on a shoestring budged did the same type of training how many men would they be able to train in a year compared to a professional army ? And I am talking about the rank and file, not cadre officers and NCO's.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

October 19, 2001

Originally posted by Affentitten:

As to the performance of conscripts versus volunteers in a mass battlefield situation,......

Interesting parallels.

Can you say how the Aussie troops rated the conscript German and Japanese troops they were fighting against ?

...and usually outstripped the British draftees they fought alongside.

In your opinion, is there any difference in being involuntarily drafted in a time of war and being subject to a conscript system already before the war and then being called up from the reserves to active duty ?

(With the exception of Crete, but we can blame the Kiwi general for that one!)

That is between you and the Kiwis.

I'm not certain, but I also believe we didn't have conscription in WW2,.....

We DID have conscription in Vietnam, and suffered the same social upheaval over it as the USA did.

That is interesting. Can you give any reasons why did you go to conscription (in case you indeed did migrate to conscription)?

Once again, this voluntary theory paid off in that Australian combat performance in Vietnam was proportionately better than that of the American units made up more heavily of "against their will" levees.

I think examples like Vietnam when talking about conscription are very localized and affect the opinions of the people who "suffered" from it.

While your arguments against concription seem valid they are based on highly isolated cases (in the global scale). Ever since Vietnam the US military has been trying to polish its shield and clean up its reputation and therein lies the seed of rather selfserving scorn of conscription.

Wars of aggression have been very hard on conscript armies. Especially unpopular lost wars. But still that does not warrant the wholesale disregard of conscription as a viable military option.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

October 19, 2001

Originally posted by Bobbaro:

This writting may be a rambling crock, and I am not satisfied that it adds much to the question.

To conscript or use a professional force, that is the question ?

Your contibution is valuable.

Perhaps the question could be better too. I am not so sure that the conscrip vs. professional question is the best expression of what is at stake.

Indeed. I try to steer clear of the metaphysical side and adhere to the historical aspects pertaining WWII. I have read many a book and debated many a time over "force specific" qualities. This pre-war conscription vs pre-was professional army is the only angle so far that has been accessible without going into chauvinistic arguments. Verily a first time when the un-quantifiable can at least be put in some sort of frame of reference.

My thesis may not be perfect and my questions not so well put but least they are a decent enough start.

Surely a military requires a professional knowledge and practice at its core.

Agreed. A concript army with elan but no workable doctrine does not last long.

A nation owes its young men of warrior age a routine military background

of sufficient professional quality as to make any sudden and compelling need find a body of conscripts already prepared to be soldiers.

In Finland the majority is still willing to serve. IIRC those who would be willing to take up arms in defence of the country is still 70-90% (depending on the gender and age).

If we suffer as a population for having sent children to war and to die, then surely it is worse for them to die and for the enemy to prevail as well.

Sometimes that is not an option.

I submit the damned thing. It was a satisfaction to say it, so not making any difference is beside my point and your point is if you have read it; you deserve it. Sensible people quit reading much sooner.

It is not everyday you run into a poet in these boards.

October 19, 2001

Originally posted by Triumvir:

Professional soldiers are good for the wars that they fight. In other words, small, limited conflicts that do not affect the homeland.

Agreed.

But for large conflicts, there can be no comparison between a conscript army and a professional army; quantity has a quality of its own.

The only thing is nowadays the effect of information warfare can produce results neither side anticipate.

However, the traditional benefit of a professional army -- the unswerving will and ability to die without flinching -- can't be discounted.

Then again in the olden days you could win your opponent by simply paying his mercenaries enough to sit it out.

A conscript army simply doesn't have the first problem; by coercing the fitter and brighter part of the polity, it in effect levels out the initial disadvantage of less training.

Does less training automatically and/or necessarily translate into worse training ?

Motivation, though, is a incredibly important part of a conscript army; and it is much harder to develop and nurture such motivation in any war apart from the defence of the homeland.

That is why they are mostly called defence forces these days.

All the armies in WWII were conscript armies.

I would hesitate to break up the continuum that should run from the -30's straight past Sept. 1939 and beyond.

This perculiarly Anglo-American practise of arbitrarily chopping off the history into seemingly disjointed entities is very annoying when trying to build up a big picture that runs contrary to the "established" dogma.

The North Koreans nearly crushed the American Regular Army in 1950. German troops routinely place ahead or equal with British and Canadian troops in gunnery.

That is why it would be nice to be able to establish quantifiable "force specific" parameters.

And let's not talk about the Israelis, the modern day uber-Finns.

Why not.

(Incidentally, has anyone ever won an SPII game playing the Arabs against Israelis, apart from 1973 battles?)

1967 the Arabs got thermal sights so low LOS engagements against regular Israeli tanks is winnable (if they do not have those damned Panhards ).

As counter examples are the British at Salamanca, and the UN coalition in Korea and the Gulf.

Korea does not count IMO as the Chinese forced a stale mate. They could have sweapt the UN forces right into the sea (right before the first nukes were dropped).

To sum this long rambling post, conscript armies, ceteris paribus, will defeat professional armies because they can recruit from a wider and thus better pool; and shunt the fittest and brightest into combat positions.

This is why the recent wars have been so short. In any prolonged conflict the professional army just lack the stamina as they are dependant on the political aspect of the conflict more than a conscript army is.

But in a war fought far from the homeland, the conscript army's will to fight will inevitably diminsh while that of the professional army will stay the same.

The überFinns started refusing to go any further once they had crossed the old borders as the justification for the agression had been met.

This can tip the scales enough that the conscript army will lose to the professional one.

True.

Oh, and wasn't it me who first came up with this suggestion? Hoarding this for a long time, eh tero?

You and others.

Naughty naughty uber-Finn... 8)

Nobody prevented you from posting this. I will not admit any large scale plagiarism.

And we überFinns are famous for our ability to turn trivial household items and other unlikely objects into lethal weapons. :cool:

October 19, 2001

Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

Why does it have to be one or the other?

In fact it isn't. Even the conscript armies have a cadre of career military.

Why not train citizens for 2 or 3 years after the end of public school and then let them leave. Some will stay but you can call up those who already know how to clean, load, and fire rifles.

Exactly. With a little refresher training they are ready for action.

Always group green troops with pros when the crap hitting the fan is immient.

Not always necessary.

I have been reading a (Finnish) study on troop morale and "warrior" types and there was a some ink spilled over the age, maritial status and the like and how it affects troop performance. It would appear that older reservists tend to be calmer under fire even if they do not have any combat experience.

Same thing with officers, do what the Germans did for awhile. Send your good officers back to a staff college that plans for the unexpected and give the generals extra options, but they all have to get rotated to the front. And you could make sure that new officers always started their service assisting an officer who has already spent time at the staff college.

I think the British did that. In their military and other colleges they had a working system where the new boys would be given to older boys for training and indoctrination.

October 19, 2001

Originally posted by lcm1947:

I'm no expect but I would assume since Germany had training in the Spanish war they were more of a professional army by War II

The Spanish war was OJT and doctrinal trial runs made by cadre "volunteers", mostly from services which are by and large manned by cadre in all armies anyway (airforce etc), be it professional or conscript.

By the same token the Red Army would be a professional army since they too had "volunteers" fighting in Spain.

plus them knowing that they were about to attack Poland they had a head start didn't they?

Strategic initiative does not really fall under the issue being debated here.

October 19, 2001

By Commissar

Would the Nazi war machine be considered a professional force or a conscript one? It is true that the soldiers were conscripted, but it is also true that many other volunteered and were very enthusiastic about serving "the fatherland".

Were the German conscripts less enthusiastically involved in the serving of the Fatherland than the foreign volunteers ?

They of course also had superb training.

So that would make the German army a professional army and not a conscript army ?

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

As for Poland - why did they lose?

Russia stabbed them in the back, for one (remember them?), and political considerations did not allow them to defend behind river lines - that would have meant abandoning half their country on the first day of the war.

They also failed to mobilize early when all indications were pointing towards war. That would have negated some of the importance of the rivers as defensive barriers.

October 19, 2001

Originally posted by The Commissar:

If you're asking which system is likely to produce better soldiers, I would definately say proffesional army.

You have to define what makes a soldier better. The pre-war professional British army failed to produce better soldiers.

One of the largest is the fact that manual conscription requires people to go get training against their will.

That is why you have to make sure the motivation to serve remains high.

By comparison the professional army can suffer from the lack of suitable raw materiel due to unappealing circumstances surrounding the service.

If you make someone do something when they dont want to do it, they will not perform totheir full efficiency, nor will they want to do so. They just want to serve their time and get the hell out.

This is a classic pro-professional army argument. What prevents the professional army from going on strike if they do not get what they need ?

A pro army on the other hand is usually based on volunteers, who actually want to do this.

This being kill, maim and learn a few cool moves to impress your friends ?

Also, since as previously mentioned, conscription is done against people's will, it means that the govt can't keep people conscripted too long - it will cause major commotion and general dislike of the govt.

Really ? Can you name any examples outside USA (which was engaged in an unpopular war at the time) ?

So countries with conscript armies usually dont have the same standards because they can't keep their men training as much as pro armies can.

What makes you think so ? Which army would be hit the hardes if, due to a recession, the military budget is cut ? A conscript army can cut down the time in service by cutting corners in the training schedule and concentrating to what they think is essential . The Finnish army did that in the 30's. The overall number of trained men was/is kept the same or even increased.

If a professional army winds up in a similar situation they have to resort to methods that endanger the efficiency of the army.

Of course, how you use your men, conscript or pro is what really matters.

Yes. But the "infrastructure" laid down by pre-war events is what determines what you can expect of your army.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

October 19, 2001

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I would contend that (outside of Finland?) there were no professional armies to fight in Europe during WW II.

My premise does not even beging to try to state that. The premise applies to pre-war conditions. And the question is how they affected the course of the war.

Perhaps Poland is an exception; they were reputed to have the best trained army and the toughest soldiers in the world.

What about the French ?

Seriously, it just occured to me that it would be useful to get some intel on their pre-war practises too.

But the Germans, British, Americans, Russians, Canadians, French - all relied on conscripts, or else volunteers who enlisted after the outbreak of hostilities.

The Germans and the Russians had a pre-war conscription system. The British and the Americans had a pre-war professional system.

Finland had (still has) a conscript system and the only true volunteers in Finland were those who wanted to joing up before they became of age and were called up in their turn.

Everyone thinks the Germans were practicing "blitzkrieg" before WW II, not realizing in many cases that "blitzkrieg" was not a word in German, nor did many German soldiers train with tanks, or even motorized transport.

Indeed. But this is not the main issue here. The main issue is the differences in the systems and how they prepared a nation and its army to war.

Many doctrines and tactical approaches used in training before the war, and even during the war, date back to World War One.

Yes. But again this is a side issue.

I am not sure what the argument is here (refresh me). Just what exactly is the thesis vis-a-vis conscripts versus professionals?

The Thesis (unrefined):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

When we look at the broader picture the armies based on pre-war conscription seem to have faired better in the field against odds the armies based on professional gadre and limited reserve of volunteers could not take. Only after the numerical odds could be stacked higher in their favour did the professional armies start winning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is only a draft copy filled with all sorts of holes and bugged by all kinds of caveats.

- How did the respective systems prepare the army as a whole to war ?

- How could the systems respond to changing needs at the outbreak of the war and later on when the situations fluctuated ?

- Some armies seem to have transcended the barriers: the Japanese and the Soviet armies in particular spring to mind.

One can argue that the British and Canadians, and the Americans to a lesser degree, were professional armies by D-Day simply because they had been training together for so long.

So that does not apply to armies whose men had fought together for so long ?

What is our definition of "professional"? I rate the pre World War One "Old Contemptibles" as professionals. But the war was won in part by Kitchener's Army, Do we consider them professional simply because they won?

No, the term "professionals" should apply only to that personel who joined up received a sallary. A professional army was an army made out of paid government employees.

And do we put the 1944 British Army in the same league as the Old Contemptibles?

No.

Or does that matter in your definition?

Not really. All armies evolved during the course of the war. My premise deals with the conditions the armies worked in pre-war years and how that affected their overall performance at various stages of the war.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

October 19, 2001

I get a bellyful of Poke- and Digimons at home:

Originally posted by Germanboy:

tero - I think the comparison falls down when you argue that the German system was better, because it probably was not.

I'm still working on it. I just think that the conscription theory works better than the "warrior tradition" one scientifically.

As for it being better or not: that is open to debate. To date I have not seen any sources besides Finnish ones that lists conscription as a criteria for the supposed better proficiency of an army over another(in the Finnish case the supposed better proficiency of the Finnish army over the Soviet Army).

And when we look at the broader picture the armies based on pre-war conscription seem to have faired better in the field against odds the armies based on professional gadre and limited reserve of volunteers could not take. Only after the numerical odds could be stacked higher in their favour did the professional armies start winning.

The Soviet and the Japanese armies are the ones that do not seem to fit this bill. But with enough research I think they too can be fitted in.

Pre-war it was creaking due to the much too rapid expansion of the army (Masson, amongst others, in 'Die deutsche Armee' makes this point quite well). I doubt that my grandfather (conscript 1937-39) did get very good training, but I check with him.

Good is a qualitative term that I think should be fielded with care in this context.

The pre-war training was given to a suit a doctrine. I think the "goodness" is dependant on the fact if doctrine survived first contact in actual combat conditions.

For the Finnish army the pre-war training delivered as the basic doctrine was proven sound even if the tools were inadequate (because of budget cuts). I am seaching the facts concerning this for the other armies.

The British Army Training in 1940-44 does reinforce my initial hunch that there is something in this line of questioning.

October 18, 2001